There are some amendments tabled to this Bill, and there are amendments tabled in similar circumstances to No. 18 on the Order Paper. The Chair does not favour the procedure by which amendments which should have been tabled on the Committee Stage are submitted on the Report Stage. However, I am allowing the amendments to be moved.
Cork Tramways (Employees' Compensation) Bill, 1933—Money Resolution. - Moneylenders (No. 2) Bill, 1933—Final Stages.
I move amendment 1.
In page 2 at the end of Section 1 to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
(2) Each of the following persons shall for the purposes of this Act be a national of Saorstát Eireann, that is to say:—
(a) a person born in Saorstát Eireann or the area now comprised in Saorstát Eireann;
(b) a person who at the relevant time is and for not less than five consecutive years immediately preceding that time has been ordinarily resident in Saorstát Eireann.
This amendment applies to moneylenders the same provision with regard to nationality that was applied in the Control of Manufactures Act, and I think it is reasonable that that should be done. An inquiry was made into the position with regard to moneylending in this country arising out of certain complaints that were made and certain things that required to be investigated. I think it will be an additional safeguard in the control of moneylending operations here if the same provision as regards nationality is applied to moneylenders as is now applied to the control and conduct of manufacturing business.
I have no particular view on this matter, but how is the Deputy going to apply this to a company? The only other view I have is that I understand, although there is no recommendation one way or other in the report of the Committee, that all these aspects were considered by the Committee and, in the Bill, I followed absolutely the recommendation of the Committee after having examined it and I do not feel justified in departing from what they recommended. I do not see, however, how you can apply the amendment to a company.
I submit that it is as important to regulate in this way the position of those in control of the moneylending business as it is the ordinary manufacturing business. We have an example this morning in connection with the setting up of a cement company here. It is proposed to control by nationality the persons engaged in that particular company. I submit to the Minister that if the structure of the Bill itself creates any difficulty with regard to the control of a company dealing with moneylending, he ought to accept this principle from the Dáil as regards the control of persons and that in so far as some fresh amendment may be necessary in the Bill to deal with companies, the passage of the Bill through the Seanad will give him the opportunity of doing that. I do not appreciate that the question of a company raises a difficulty in this Bill, because it does not raise a difficulty in, say the Cement Bill or any of the other industries that are being controlled by the Control of Manufactures Act.
My recollection is not very clear upon this matter, but I am sure Deputy Little will put me right especially as I was not present at every meeting of the Moneylenders Committee. My recollection is that the subject matter of this amendment was not discussed or did not come before the Moneylenders Committee. I should like to point out for the consideration of the Minister that I do not think there are any companies really so-called which are moneylenders. Are not the moneylending firms in existence, even though they may put company in the name of the firm, really a partnership and no more?
There are no limited liability companies of moneylenders. There might be one or two gentlemen who set up up the moneylending business, but there are no limited liability companies in the proper sense of the word. I believe—in fact, I am quite certain—that if people embark on the business of moneylending it might be advisable, and I think there is a good deal to be said for it, that if the extraordinarily profitable business of moneylending is to be carried on, the profits should be confined to persons in this country and that gentlemen from abroad should not be allowed to settle down here and make this the sphere of their operations, by which they may manage to collect large sums of money profitably and quickly in the fashion in which moneylenders are, at any rate, credited with getting it.
I did not quite catch the Minister's reference with regard to the difficulties. Sub-section (3) of Section 3 describes how a company shall get this licence. It says: "For the purposes of this sub-section the true name of a limited liability company shall be the name under which such company was incorporated." The amendment standing in Deputy Mulcahy's name is as follows:—"In page 3, before Section 4 (3), to insert a new sub-section as follows—‘(3) A certificate under this section shall not be granted in respect of a person who is not a national of Saorstát Eireann.'" A limited liability company is a juristic person, but you could not describe a limited liability company incorporated in Saorstát Eireann as a national of Saorstát Eireann.
It would depend on this.
If it is a juristic person, and if such a person, being incorporated in Saorstát Eireann, becomes a national of Saorstát Eireann, I do not see any difficulty in applying it to limited liability companies. I think the difficulty we are faced with is that if the moneylending laws become more stringent in England, the greater will be the tendency for them to come over and camp here. I think we have quite enough of them here already if we are to judge by the report of the Moneylenders Commission. However, I would have preferred to see Deputy Mulcahy employ the term "Ireland" here instead of "Saorstát Eireann," because I think the less we emphasise the difference in juridical nationality between here and the Six Counties the better for all of us.
If Deputy Dillon had heard the discussion here on Deputy Dockrell's amendment he would understand the difficulty on that matter, and he would see that I would have no hope of getting an amendment accepted for the whole country. Therefore, if I was to have any hope at all of getting the amendment accepted, I was restricted to the area defined in the Control of Manufactures Bill.
Well, I have made a similar point previously and I return to the charge on the Moneylenders Bill— even to the extent of letting in Belfast moneylenders.
Does the Deputy think that any moneylenders who may come down here from Belfast would be of the Celtic race?
Well, at least, any moneylender who came here from Belfast would have acquired a Celtic veneer. He would have "wrapped the green flag round him" and that, at least, would have recommended him to us and we would have claimed him as our own. I think the Minister should accept the amendment from the point of view that, if there is any increase in the stringency of the British laws with regard to moneylending, the moneylenders will flock over here.
This really follows the British and Northern Ireland Act. It is practically the same.
I know that it might become more stringent in the future, so there does not seem to be any great objection to confining any future legislation to our nationals rather than to foreigners.
I think it could be provided by a consequential amendment. I have no particular view one way or the other, but the instructions from my Department are that this has been considered and no way could be found.
I do not think it had been. That is my recollection.
I am agreeable to accept it.
Amendment accepted.
There would have to be a consequential amendment in the Seanad.
This amendment will not require redrafting?
If it does, surely, the Minister can consider the matter and have an amendment inserted in the Seanad.
If the Deputy will withdraw the amendment, I can have it inserted.
Amendments 1, 2 and 3 agreed to.
Question—"That the Bill be received for final consideration"—put and agreed to.
Question—"That the Bill do now pass"—put and agreed to.